United States v. Camacho

USCA1 Opinion












[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________


No. 96-1493

UNITED STATES,

Appellee,

v.

ELADIO CAMACHO, JR.,
A/K/A DAVID RICHARD,
A/K/A HECTOR PEREZ,

Defendant, Appellant.

____________________


APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

[Hon. Jose Antonio Fuste, U.S. District Judge] ___________________

____________________

Before

Selya, Boudin and Lynch,
Circuit Judges. ______________

____________________

Benicio Sanchez Rivera, Federal Public Defender, and Miguel A.A. ______________________ ____________
Nogueras-Castro, Assistant Federal Public Defendant, on brief for _______________
appellant.
Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, Nelson Perez-Sosa, ______________ ___________________
Assistant United States Attorney, and Jose A. Quiles-Espinosa, Senior _______________________
Litigation Counsel, on brief for appellee.


____________________

February 4, 1997
____________________













Per Curiam. Eladio Camacho appeals from his ___________

sentence on the sole ground that the district court erred in

denying him a two-level reduction for his "minor" role in the

offense under U.S.S.G. 3B1.2(b). In a Supplemental Order

dated December 4, 1996, the district court found that Camacho

was not "less culpable than most other participants."

U.S.S.G. 3B1.2, comment. (n.3). We review such

determinations only for clear error. See United States v. ___ ______________

Rostoff, 53 F.3d 398, 413 (1st Cir. 1995). "'Where more than _______

one reasonable inference may be drawn from undisputed facts,

the court's choice from among supportable alternatives cannot

be clearly erroneous.'" United States v. Rodriguez Cortes, ______________ _________________

949 F.2d 532, 546-47 (1st Cir. 1991) (citation omitted).

The district court's role-in-the-offense determination

in this case was not clearly erroneous. "[A] defendant who

is a drug courier is not entitled as of right to a reduction

of the offense level as a minimal or minor participant." ________

United States v. Lopez-Gil, 965 F.2d 1124, 1131 (1st Cir. ______________ _________

1992) (emphasis added). The undisputed fact that Camacho

acted as a drug courier does not entitle him to a two-level

reduction for minor participation and the court's refusal to

grant a reduction was not clearly erroneous.

Camacho's sentence is affirmed. See Loc. R. 27.1. ________ ___







-2-